SIMUL8 Healthcare: Designing New Spaces and Processes with simulation
SIMUL8 User Group - Visual8 Case Study - Plywood Manufacturing.
-
Upload
simul8-corporation -
Category
Business
-
view
761 -
download
4
description
Transcript of SIMUL8 User Group - Visual8 Case Study - Plywood Manufacturing.
Visual8 Corporation
WSC2013 – SIMUL8 User Group Presentation
Agenda
About Visual8 – Company Overview
Example Projects
Case Study – Automated Plywood Patching Line
Live Demonstration
Questions & Answers
Conclusion
2
3
Background:
– Industrial Engineering & Operations Research Consultants
– Provide productivity improvements to companies through simulation modeling, analysis and optimization
Business Focus:
– Simulation Consulting, Training & Support with SIMUL8
– Optimization, Planning & Scheduling
– Strategic, Tactical & Operational Level Decision Support
Industry Specialization:
– General Manufacturing, Distribution & Supply Chain
– Automotive, Food & Beverage, Plastics, Oil & Gas
– Mining, Smelting, Metals Processing
Company Profile
Visual8 Overview
4
Distribution Centre – Inventory Management
Example Projects
Objective:
To identify whether the warehouse can conform to plan
To determine the inventory sizing required for all products
To allocate spacing and materials handling to all floors
Solution:
Create a warehousing simulation of the entire DC and show inventory movements, arrivals and shipments, inventory spacing, and labour requirements.
Benefits:
Capacity Planning tool for new products
Correct sizing of inventory for product mix and replenishment
Proven delivery capability to stores
5
Dairy Cooler – Process Improvement
Example Projects
Objective:
Evaluate the impact of product layout and staff plans on labour picking time
Determine the impact of sequencing and batching of product on storage requirements and order fulfillment
Solution:
Created a component-based flexible simulator that can be used to simulate the operation of all 15 Dairies
Benefits:
Increased output with minimal capital changes
Determine the capacity limits of the materials handling system
Standardized Best-Practices Procedures across plants
6
Candy Manufacturer – Capacity Planning
Example Projects
Objective:
Consolidation of external packaging plant within plant
To identify WIP and Finished Goods space requirements
To evaluate impact of smaller batches to directly feed packing
Solution:
Create a plant-wide simulation of entire Candy operations and simulate the impact of the new packaging lines
Benefits:
Decrease in transportation and plant costs
Correct inventory sizing prior to commissioning of line
Identified a need for a tighter scheduling system
Example Projects 7
Automotive Bumper Line – Takt-Time Analysis
Objective:
Demonstrate capability of planned assembly line to Customer
To determine the correct number of assembly stations
To allocate appropriate tasks and parts to stations
Solution:
Create an assembly-line simulation of the Bumper line and show build rates, line replenishment requirements, delivery rates, and labor requirements
Benefits:
Reduced commissioning time of the line to meet TAKT times
Correct sizing of bins for product mix and replenishment
Proven delivery capability to Customer
Case Study – Plywood Finishing 8
Background:
Major US plywood manufacturer wanted to update their current manual defect patching process to an automated robotic line.
A number of different design configurations were proposed and the company wanted a way to effectively evaluate them.
Project Objective:
Design and construct detailed simulation models of the various proposed patch line designs
Conduct sensitivity analysis study to help determine the configuration best suited to meet client requirements.
Case Study – Plywood Finishing 9
Project Steps:
1. Coordination & Data Collection
2. Initial Simulation Model Development
3. Preliminary Analysis & Review
4. Model Refinement and In-Depth Analysis
5. Onsite Review and Discussion
Process Description - Current 10
Manual Plywood Inspection & Repair
• Stacks of manufactured plywood delivered to the line
• Plywood conveyed through a panel inspection/repair area on rigid belt
• Defects in panel manually processed by two workers
• Routing to remove defects such as knots
• Patching to fill holes left by router and other defects such as cracks
Process Issues
• Lack of quality control
• High level of rework
• Excessive use of Patching compound
Process Description - Planned 11
Automated Inspection & Repair
• Stacks of manufactured plywood delivered to the line
• Plywood conveyed through an imaging tool to identify quantity, types, sizes and locations of defects
• Product conveyed to Routing or combined Routing and Patching equipment, indexed and locked into position
• Routing operation to remove defects such as knots
• Patching operation to fill holes left by router and other defects such as cracks
Key considerations
• Supply of plywood/movement of product through the scanner and line not an issue
• Need to achieve high throughput with good utilization of equipment, Limited floor space available
Process Description - Planned 12
Defect Scanning Panel Repair Stations
Panel Exit
Panel Loading
Model Inputs 13
Model Inputs 14
Model Inputs 15
Model Inputs 16
Design Layouts 17
Scenario 1a – Parallel Work Centers (Combined Route & Patch)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center (line)
2. Dedicated routing & patch
robots
3. Simple board conveyance
(even distribution to work
centers)
Design Layouts 18
Scenario 1b – Parallel Work Centers (Separate Route & Patch)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
separate for each work
center (line)
2. Dedicated routing & patch
robots
3. Simple board conveyance
(even distribution to work
centers)
Design Layouts 19
Scenario 1c – Parallel Work Centers (Defect-based Board Routing)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center
2. Dedicated routing & patch
robots
3. Dual patch robots in one
work center
4. Defect-based board
conveyance (high defect
boards routed to dual robot
work centers)
Design Layouts 20
Scenario 1d – Parallel Work Centers (Shared Patch Robots)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
separate in same work
center
2. Two patch robots shared
between to work centers
3. Simple board conveyance
(even distribution to work
centers)
Design Layouts 21
Scenario 1e – Parallel Work Centers (Shared Patch + Defect Routing)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
separate in same work
center
2. Two patch robots shared
between to work centers
3. Dual patch robots in one
work center
4. Defect-based board
conveyance (high defect
boards routed to dual robot
work centers)
Design Layouts 22
Scenario 1f – Parallel Work Centers (Separate Route & Patch)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
separate for each work
center (line)
2. Dedicated routing & patch
robots
3. Simple board conveyance
(even distribution to work
centers)
Design Layouts 23
Scenario 2a – Alternating Patch Robots (In/Out Conveyance)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center
2. Patch robots shared
between two work centers
3. Boards move into and out
of work centers from same
side
Design Layouts 24
Scenario 2b – Alternating Patch Robots (Flow-through Conveyance)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center
2. Patch robots shared
between two work centers
3. Boards flow through work
centers
Design Layouts 25
Layout 3 – Multiple Patch Robots per Board
Key Design Factors:
1. Single Work Center
resulting in lower space
utilization
2. Work on a single board
divided out to 4 robots
3. Boards flow through work
center
Design Layouts 26
Layout 4 – Combined Routing & Patch Robots
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center
2. Routing and patch
operations are completed
by single robot
3. Boards flow through work
centers
Sensitivity Analysis Testing 27
Generated Data:
Simulation trials based on Panel data created using distributions
• AC Grade / BC Grade / Siding Grade
Real Data:
Single runs utilizing actual Scanner data
• AC Grade / BC Grade / Siding Grade
Breakdowns/Efficiency:
• Randomized breakdowns
• Scheduled stoppages
Results 28
Key Findings: • Parallel Work Centers yield optimal throughput
• Maximize Patch Robot Utilization by alternating workstations or combining Route/Patch
• Minimize Routing & Patching overlap
• Parallel Work Centers increase redundancy
• Flow-though Work Centers at Patch if possible
Layout 1A Layout 1B Layout 1C Layout 1D Layout 1E Layout 1F Layout 2A Layout 2B Layout 3 Layout 4
Router 1: Utilization % 22.5 24.2 22.2 24.2 22.4 24.2 20.1 20.0 40.7 -
Router 2: Utilization % 22.4 24.3 22.2 24.4 22.5 24.0 19.8 19.8 32.6 -
Router 3: Utilization % 22.6 24.4 26.6 33.8 33.8 24.2 20.0 20.0 33.9 -
Router 4: Utilization % - - - - - 24.5 20.1 20.0 26.3 -
Patching 1: Working % 70.7 76.3 69.7 76.2 89.9 76.4 79.2 86.2 18.0 81.8
Patching 2: Working % 70.6 76.4 69.7 76.3 95.3 76.2 84.6 77.3 17.6 81.9
Patching 3: Working % 70.6 76.3 37.8 48.1 48.2 76.1 79.6 86.3 - 81.8
Patching 4: Working % - - 45.7 57.9 57.9 76.4 84.3 77.1 - 81.6
Board Count 4820 5207 5071 5881 5620 6938 5706 5751 3602 5518
Results 29
Highest throughput scenario Layout 1F:
Issues: • Unbalanced line yields underutilized Patch robots • Reconfiguring the line to balance line would mean exceeding floor space
limitations or require complex conveyor set up • Additional equipment & conveyance required – potential reliability impacts
Results 30
Final choice Layout 4:
Layout analysis: • Throughput requirements met • Machine utilization requirements achieved • Floor space limitations not exceeded • Conveyance simplicity maintained
Presentation of Sample Model
Questions & Answers
31
Example Model, Q & A
Live Demonstration